Public Schools: The Battleground of Ideology

Conservatives like to point to two events that marked the decline in the quality of public education in the US. The first was the Scopes Trial, which paved the way for the teaching of Evolution in the public schools; and the second was the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Engel Case, which outlawed mandated prayers in public schools. To this day, the call from Christians to "put God back into the public schools" continues, loud and clear. Consider this petition, for example, which has over 21,000 signatures as of this post. Or consider this proposal, or Pat Robertson's words on the matter before the US Senate.

Liberals, on the other hand, are equally interested in seeing to it that subjects that many consider anti-Christian are taught in the schools. Climate change; sex education that includes birth control; evolution; acceptance of GLBT lifestyles, and other topics often work their way into public school cirricula, to the consternation of vocal Christians.

Both sides claim absolute authority in their claims. Conservatives claim the holy Word of God, and this nation's supposed "Christian heritage," while liberals claim science and the needs of modern culture. And these debates continue to play out in state and local school boards across the country. Should schools teach the kids about creation, evolution, or both (see here)? Should  their Sexual Education cirriculum be based on abstinence, protection methods, or both (see here)? Should the kids be taught that a family based on a married mother and father, and children is the ideal family unit, or that the definition of "family" is fluid and may include single parents, gay parents, unmarried parents, or other arrangements (see here)?

The reality is that these debates aren't really about what is scientifically right vs. what is scientifically wrong; or what empowers the kids with knowledge vs. what burdens the kids with confusion; or what instills values in the kids vs. what leads them down the path of moral decay. Really, these debates are about which side is going to win the right to indoctrinate other peoples' kids with their own ideology, and with public tax money. These debates turn the whole concept of public education into a chess match between competing worldviews, where the schools are the chess boards and the kids are the pieces.

When a Christian high-school student wants to lead her graduating class in prayer at graduation, and an atheist enlists the ACLU help put a stop to it, both sides of the debate are bringing their ideologies to court - both the court of law and the court of public opinion - to see which side wins the right to indoctrinate kids. The kids themselves are merely pieces in the game. When a Christian student wants to wear a shirt with an anti-gay message and the courts (both of law and of public opinion) are brought in, it's just another battle for the right to indoctrinate. Every matter in which the religion or culture of one student (or her parents) in a public school butts up against the religion or culture of another student (or his parents) in a public school, and the matter is brought before the courts, it becomes just another battle for the right to indoctrinate. And the kids always lose.

The belief that we don't want anyone else deciding what our kids are taught is one of the principal reasons libertarians, minarchists, voluntaryists, and other small-government types oppose the very idea of government education. If we want to teach our kids x, and someone else wants to teach their kids y, then the way to assure they're taught what we want is to do it ourselves; not to make our local school board do it for us and bring everyone else's kids along for the ride. We need to detach ourselves from the idea that we have any say in what other peoples' kids are taught in school, just as no one else has any say in what our kids are taught in school.

So how are we to accomplish this? Let me make a few suggestions.

1. Advocate for home-schooling/un-schooling. The only way to have absolute, 100% control over the education your kids receive is to do it yourself. Homeschooling, which started out as a fringe movement (and is still regarded by some as such) has now gained grudging acceptance, and conservative parents and liberal parents alike have warmed to the idea that a child can receive a good education solely from their parents. Un-schooling takes the idea a step further, letting the kids themselves direct their own education (see here for an extreme example). The downside to this is that it requires a huge commitment, of both time and money, of one or both parents to be successful at it. In today's economy, it's simply not a workable solution for many Christian parents.

2. Advocate for educational cooperatives. If full-time homeschooling isn't workable for your family, there are likely several other families in your community in the same boat. While by yourself you may not be able to accomplish your goal, with the help of other parents you may find that, collectively, you are able to pull it off. Parents can cooperate together to see that their group of kids share in the educational experience. Where one parent can handle matters of music or art, and another can handle matters of math or science; or where one parent can facilitate the group's education on Mondays, and another can facilitate on Tuesdays; where parents cooperate with each other to achieve their goals, the government is taken out of the education equation, yet the burden doesn't fall squarely on one's own family.

3. Advocate for educational vouchers. Private education remains an alternative for parents who want a say in what their kids are taught. The fact that it's private means that parents have the power to vote with their feet if they are not satisfied with the education their kids are receiving. Unfortunately, that power is denied to parents who cannot afford the cost of private education. For this reason, I support a system where parents are offered a refund on their tax burden that would otherwise go to public education. With a voucher system, parents are given a credit that could be applied to the cost of a private education of their choosing. This saves parents who choose private education from the financial burden of having to pay both taxes for public education and the cost of private education.

Remember, having liberty means allowing others liberty as well. My beliefs may differ from yours, sometimes in dramatic and startling ways. But I have no more right to demand that my beliefs are taught to your kids than you do to demand that your beliefs are taught to my kids. Let's stop making the schools the place where my ideology fights it out with yours. This is the only way that the kids will win.

Sin vs. Bad Ideas; What's the Difference?

I remember the sermon that was preached to me in Bible College that was delivered from the president himself. As part of a series of sermons on personal behavior in twice-weekly Chapel meetings, the president was called on to deliver a message on alcohol consumption. Not unexpectedly - considering that all of us students had signed pledges not to drink any alcohol, on-campus or not, under pain of expulsion - our president delivered an impassioned sermon arguing that teetotaling abstinence from alcohol was the only acceptable Christian approach to alcohol.


This flies in the face of 2,000 years of Christian history, to say nothing of the millions of Christians around the world who partake in alcohol as part of their worship. Mr. President's sermon, however, was based on a variety of arguments, such as: the example set for others; the appearance of wrongdoing; the potential damage done by alcohol to families and, by extension, to society at large (one of the very arguments that led to Prohibition, but I digress); and potential harm done to one's body by alcohol. Nowhere in his sermon was any mention of Biblical prohibitions against alcohol use.


That's because there aren't any. While the Bible does warn against drunkenness, the reality is that wine was a part of daily life in Bible times, and indeed it's a fair assumption that most if not all of the early Christians drank wine, and most likely Jesus himself did too (see John 2; the idea that Jesus would create wine for consumption at a wedding but then insult the host by not drinking any is patently ludicrous).


Through either a tortured reading of Scripture; or through tired and illogical arguments about the differences between ancient wine vs. modern libations; or both, millions of Christians (mostly in the US) hold to Prohibition-era notions of alcohol consumption. And while a compelling case can be made that alcohol consumption is (or at least, can be) a bad idea, there is just no evidence that's it's a sin.


When exercising Christian liberty, we need to be mindful of the differences between things that are bad ideas versus things that are sin. For example, in the main, gambling is a bad idea. The house gets a (sometimes huge) cut - and always wins - and when the house is done with their cut the state gets a cut. Gambling is essentially throwing money away, on the hopes that you'll gain some that you didn't earn. Far too many families have been impoverished by breadwinners choosing to gamble, and no one will deny that gambling addiction is a real disease. Naturally, many Christians choose not to gamble. It's a bad idea. But is it a sin? No - gambling is mentioned rarely in the Bible, and when it's mentioned, it's merely mentioned matter-of-factly (see John 19:24). It's a sin to impoverish your family by blowing your paycheck, but that can be accomplished through any number of means besides gambling. If no one depends on the money you're throwing away but you, then gambling is merely a bad idea.


This argument can be applied to any number of things that, at least in Christian culture, are considered to be sins but are actually just bad ideas. Smoking? Bad idea, not a sin. Overeating? Bad idea, not a sin. Use of hard drugs such as opiates? [Very] bad idea, but still not a sin.


And of course, all of this says nothing about the best tool available to us in matters of sin vs. bad ideas: moderation. Letting your kids go hungry this week because you blew your paycheck at the craps table is a sin. Blowing a few bucks that you've saved for a weekend at the riverboat casino is not. Drinking until you're falling-over drunk and then driving is a sin. Having an adult beverage with a meal is not.


Having Christian liberty means allowing others (Christians and non-Christians alike) to exercise their own liberty. Sometimes that means making choices that we may or may not agree with. We need to let go of our notions that, just because we regard something as harmful (even rightfully so), that we have any say in whether or not another Christian (or, more importantly, non-Christians) can participate in it. And for those matters where the harm only comes from abuse, our job is to allow others to practice their liberty, and to advocate for moderation, not only in the lives of those we care about, but in our own lives as well.

Finally, Some Sanity on Drones

As I've mentioned elsewhere in this blog, the FAA has authorized the use of military surveillance drones by local law enforcement agencies. I was, of course, outraged about this; but even more outrageous was the lack of outrage (so to speak) from just about everyone else, outside of the liberty community.

Fortunately, someone in Washington has found the courage to say "This is not right" and introduce some legislation. Foxnews.com is reporting that GOP Rep. Austin Scott has introduced a bill that would ostensibly curb the use of drones for surveillance on US soil.

Unfortunately, Mr. Scott's bill only seeks to limit the use of drones, rather than ban them entirely. As stated in the linked article, Mr. Scott's plan would only limit the use of drones to cases where a warrant is issued; or in warrant-less surveillance at the border, or in a terrorist attack. As we know all too well, however, such broad exceptions leave the door open far too wide for abuse of those exceptions.

I call on Mr. Scott to amend his proposal to ban surveillance drones outright from use on US soil.

Medical Marijuana: Coming to *Another* State Near You?

The number of states that allow one form or another of medical marijuana may in the near future grow (see what I did there?) from sixteen (DC makes seventeen) to twenty four, putting almost half of the nation's sovereign states in blatant defiance of federal law. Currently, seven ballot initiatives/proposed pieces of legislation are awaiting action in Illinois, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. A couple of these cases require a closer look.

The proposed Illinois statute would authorize users with medical marijuana prescriptions to fill their scripts at state-licensed dispensaries under a pilot program that would last three years; after the three years, the legislature would theoretically review the program's successes and/or failures and decide whether or not to renew the program. Unfortunately, here in Illinois medical marijuana is mostly wishful thinking at this point. The legislation has been stalled for several years and is not currently up for any votes or discussion.

Interestingly, Illinois' Democrat governor Pat Quinn, who is on the record as saying he thinks marijuana should remain illegal, supports Chicago mayor (and Obama flunkie) Rahm Immanuel's proposal to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in Chicago. I hope a reporter is able to corner Quinn and get him to admit why he favors decriminalization in Chicago but not the rest of the state.

Unfortunately, Missouri's proposal also appears to be dead in the water. It is currently not scheduled for any review in the Missouri legislature. We can only hope that the bill's sponsor will find the courage to re-introduce it at the next legislative session.

Of course, while I welcome any attempts to introduce medical marijuana, my ultimate desire remains full legalization across the country.

The Drug War Claims More Innocent Victims

In their fanatical quest to protect us from what we put into our own bodies, the feds, under the banner of the War on Drugs, are now targeting those who are legitimately sick and need prescription painkillers for legitimate pain management.


As reported here, here, and elsewhere, patients with legitimate prescriptions for narcotic painkillers have found their pharmacies closed due to the DEA deciding that they (the pharmacies) have filled too many painkiller prescriptions; or have even been arrested for filling their prescriptions.


Now, let's be clear about a few things. First, opiates are dangerous drugs (especially when compared to harmless "drugs" such as cannabis); they are powerfully addictive and can (and do) lead to severe physiological harm to their users. Second, many people who would otherwise never touch drugs have found themselves addicted to opiates as a result of surgeries, injuries, or other chronic pain-inducing conditions; and thus find themselves facing the same problems that an addict on the street faces.


However, the government has no right to regulate what we put into our bodies, even if those things are harmful. So why do so many (conservative) Christians decry attempts to regulate sugary soft drinks or trans fats  (both dangerous substances) as unnecessary government intrusion into our personal lives, but allow the Drug War to continue?


The fact of the matter is, if an opiate addict can get his/her fix at market prices without any legal hassle, then the addict won't need to resort to so-called "rogue pharmacies" or other black markets for their product. Further, the Drug War simply fuels the black market, so that addicts in need of a fix are driven to commit actual crimes (that is, crimes with victims) to get the money to pay for their addiction. If we legalized drugs, there would be no need for the black market and thus no artificially inflated prices.


So instead of zealously prosecuting (and persecuting) those who have legitimate (or "illegitimate") needs for opiates, and those who attempt to fill those needs; legalize opiates and tax them. Use the tax money to fund treatment options for those who seek treatment. Instead of criminalizing and demonizing opiate use and addiction, treat it like a disease that requires treatment.

Who *Really* Benefits from Marijuana Prohibition?

The lie that we've been told since the 1930's is that marijuana is harmful, so the government is looking out for us by keeping it illegal. Almost eighty years into Prohibition, the government continues to perpetuate this myth, and unfortunately, too many Christians continue to buy into it.


In reality, marijuana is no more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol - two legal substances. This point is backed up by millions of hours of research over decades, and does not need to be debated here. What is actually orders of magnitude worse than marijuana itself are our country's marijuana laws. Consider the case of Jillian Batty, a candy-maker from California, and ask yourself the question: which is more harmful; marijuana, or our marijuana laws?


As reported on copblock.org, Jillian Batty Wemyss was on her way from her home in California to New Hampshire, where she had planned to set up her booth selling her candy and fudge at a festival. While driving through Texas, Jillian was stopped at an unconstitutional border-patrol checkpoint, where a drug dog signaled that she (the dog) smelled drugs. Jillian's vehicle was unlawfully searched, and she was found to be in possession of less than a gram of cannabis. She was jailed overnight and placed in solitary confinement. Under Texas' particularly draconian drug laws, she's facing 180 days in jail.


What, specifically, is Jillian being protected from? The possibility that she would have gone to her hotel that night and relaxed with a joint, while victimizing nobody? In what way is Jillian's life going to be improved now that she's a name and number in the Texas criminal justice system? Thanks to our overbearing government's "protection" of Jillian, she missed out on her chance for her business to make money, depriving her family of income. But at least we're protecting her from harm.


Why do we continue to prosecute this ridiculous war against a harmless plant and those who use it? Let's take a look at who [i]actually[/i] benefits from marijuana prohibition.


1. The Drug-Testing Industry. Ever wondered why your employer is so interested in what you do in your free time? If you're a conservative and/or a Christian, you've most likely bought into the mistaken belief that if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, and simply accepted having to pee in a cup as part of the job. In reality, the drug testing industry is a multi-billion dollar industry [1] that purports to benefit employers and probation boards, while instead funneling millions back into government anti-drug propaganda and politicians' campaign funds in order to stay in business.


2. Police Unions. The federal government hands out billions of dollars in grants to local law enforcement agencies in the name of anti-drug enforcement; here is one example [2]. If those government grants were to dry up, local police departments would be out that sweet, sweet federal money. Of course, if marijuana were legal, police departments wouldn't need that money to bust the 900,000 people per year that they do for possession. Of course, the police unions don't see it that way. Federal grant money = police jobs = more money for police unions. The system continues to perpetuate itself. As long as a misinformed populace continues to demand police protection from the Loco Weed, police departments will continue to demand those federal anti-drug grants. And as those federal anti-drug grants continue to enrich police unions, which leads to campaign donations (but only for those candidates who are interested in continuing marijuana prohibition), prohibition will continue.


3. Criminal Gangs. There's a reason the Bloods, Crips, MS13, Mexican drug cartels, and any other armed criminal gang that you care to name, are involved in the drug trade: it's profitable. If users could purchase their cannabis legally (as they can in 16 states, barring federal enforcement), armed gangs have no incentive to become involved in marijuana trafficking. Of course, this makes a larger case for the legalization of all drugs, but that is a topic for another column.


If you are interested in supporting Ms. Batty Wemyss, and getting some delicious toffee, fudge, or candy in return, please visit her website: Stateless Sweets

[1] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/08/12/CM163746.DTL
[2] http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120507/ARTICLE/120509652?tc=ar

North Dakota Voters Reject the Phony War on Religion

Ordinarily, a ballot measure in a spring election in a Midwestern state is hardly worthy of notice by the news outlets, the blogosphere, or the podcast-o-sphere.  But North Dakota voters and their defeat of Measure 3 have gotten us talking.

In the main, this proposed amendment to the North Dakota constitution was an attempt to restrict the legislature from getting involved in entanglements in matters of religious liberty without a compelling state interest. Although the proposed legislation predates the controversy, there is an obvious overlap between this legislation and the national discussion on contraception. Indeed, the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, vocal supporters of the proposed legislation, pointed out that this measure would have prevented the state from requiring institutions to provide contraception coverage.

North Dakota voters defeated the proposed amendment. At first blush, this appears to be a blow to the ideas of religious liberty. However, a closer look at the facts reveals that the real reason the measure was defeated have to do with its broad language and poor wording. In its proposed form, opponents argued, the legislation could have paved the way for state-sanctioned genital mutilation, honor killings, and related horrors committed in the name of religious liberty.

Matters of law and matters of religious liberty are, unfortunately, going to intersect in today's world, just as they have for centuries. As a liberty-minded Christian, I'd like to explore my thoughts about the nature of this relationship.

First, something needs to be said regarding the national discussion about government requiring institutions to provide contraception care. Let me be fully clear about this: I think that the Catholic Church's position on contraception and birth control is ridiculous. It defies common sense; it unjustly burdens Catholic women and Catholic families; and it can be argued that it has lead to increases in AIDS (due to the Church applying pressure to African governments to stop providing condoms and condom education). Nevertheless, whether I agree with it or not, it is the Catholic Church's position. Therefore, I reject the notion that an institution should be forced, by the government, to pay for something that they don't believe in. This is a clear violation of the principles liberty, and while I sympathize with the plight of those victimized by the Church's position, I cannot abide any attempt by law to interfere with a religious matter if it does not affect the liberties of another person. This distinction will be important in the following paragraphs.

However, far too often expressions of religious liberty lead to victimization of innocent people. An extreme example of this is female circumcision. While some would seek to justify the practice by calling it an expression of religious liberty, the reality is that it's a hideous act of aggression against a human being. Any law that would prevent the practice would, of course, have my support (although such a law isn't necessary in the U.S., as our existing assault & battery laws would come into play).

When matters of religious liberty intersect with the lives of children, we walk a very fine line. For example, I could declare that I support the right of any parent to raise their children in a way that suits them. But I would be lying- I don't support the right of parents to mercilessly beat their children, even if their religion allows (nay encourages it). I don't support the right of parents to marry off their adolescent daughters to old men for lives of sexual slavery, even if their religion allows (nay encourages it). But do I support the right of a parent to deny life-saving medical care to a child because of their religion? Do I support the right of a parent to deny their ids vaccinations because of their religion? Unfortunately, in cases like these the answer isn't so readily apparent.

The First Amendment, while at once abundantly clear ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), is simultaneously limited. The Founders couldn't possibly have considered such things as genital mutilation, or contraception, or blood transfusions, or any of the modern areas where law and religion become entangled. For this reason, legislators need to take a cautious and measured approach when dealing with matters of religious liberty. The goal should be to allow as much freedom as possible in practicing religion while protecting the rights of others not to be victimized by an expression of religion. Unfortunately, broad and poorly-worded legislation is not the way to go about it.